And also the Intertoto Cup in 2006 IIRC.
Haha Newcastle
- Thread starter Di Maria's angel
- Start date
It's bollocks, you just won't admit it.Proving yet again you will never actually understand anything
This seems to be more of an xG technicality than proof that it is the most dominant performance in the Premier League ever. Basically, all their goals where either close to 100% tap-ins or penalties. Two of them were tap-ins in open goals. Several times they had big chances consecutively, which if double counted really beef up the xG.
In the end xG just measures how good and how many chances a team creates. What you describe fits the numbers perfectly, a bunch of excellent chances.
Does indeed not say anything about how "dominant" a team is, but that's a very weakly defined aspect of football.
Did Newcastle win?
Glad Dubravka did it against someone else for once.
Can't believe I've watched footy without xG since the 80's. What a waste that was until thank goodness football was fixed by statistians a few years ago (!!!)
What's your point
Where is that expected points guy? Haven't seen them for a while
So the team that dominated the game according to xG also won the game. I don't see how that proves xG to be useless.What's your point
Seriously, that's your argument
Anyone completely dismissing xG is just as bad as anyone wholly reliant on it for an argument.
Liverpool had 34 shots with an xG/shot of 0.21. In the context of an average PL game it’s very impressive that Liverpool aggregated such a high number as it does, however you look at itrely on them creating lots of opportunities to shoot on goal.
25 of their shots were inside the box so 73.5% of their attempts on goal are in the box. If you look at their shot map from Opta it is all clustered around the centre too. So whether again you like it or not it’s good shooting positions.
What you should be looking at is how were any high xG chances created and what can teams do to defend that or replicate it in their own attacks.
You can have a play around with this to see: https://theanalyst.com/eu/2024/01/liverpool-4-2-newcastle-stats/
Liverpool had 34 shots with an xG/shot of 0.21. In the context of an average PL game it’s very impressive that Liverpool aggregated such a high number as it does, however you look at itrely on them creating lots of opportunities to shoot on goal.
25 of their shots were inside the box so 73.5% of their attempts on goal are in the box. If you look at their shot map from Opta it is all clustered around the centre too. So whether again you like it or not it’s good shooting positions.
What you should be looking at is how were any high xG chances created and what can teams do to defend that or replicate it in their own attacks.
You can have a play around with this to see: https://theanalyst.com/eu/2024/01/liverpool-4-2-newcastle-stats/
Not really, but I struggle to understand the initial point. Usually the xG being bollocks claims come when the team that had higher xG lost the game.Seriously, that's your argument
No, the whole concept of x anything is bollocks.
Eyy, I might get something right for a change.
It's good seeing them fail, but I think this will annoy the Saudis and the purse is going to be wide open in the summer. Howe will obviously be gone.
I grew out of kids cartoons a while ago, but each to their own.
I tried to watch the Mog Xmas special, because I like cats, but it was very childish, nevertheless.
Elon Musk in the mud
The Fairs Cup wasn't an official tournament. It wasn't the Uefa Cup. Uefa don't even recognise it.
You didn’t need Xg to tell you how much Liverpool dominated that game. Darwin should have had a relatively easy hat trick and didn’t score any. Liverpool scored 4 and missed a penalty. It was one of the worst performances I have seen by a team in the PL. They look absolutely exhausted.
People talk about how Howe and ETH have been unlucky with injuries but never that their fitness programs and squad rotation could be culpable for the injuries they are getting.
Both have overplayed players and are paying the price for it. It’s not to be sympathized with, it can just as easily be another point against their coaching.
People talk about how Howe and ETH have been unlucky with injuries but never that their fitness programs and squad rotation could be culpable for the injuries they are getting.
Both have overplayed players and are paying the price for it. It’s not to be sympathized with, it can just as easily be another point against their coaching.
Last edited:
I can see why you’re not just Colin.
I'd agree, xhamster was a huge disappointment.
I don't understand what you mean. How does it prove what you're saying?
Did you ever in your life say something like "they should have scored three goals in that match" while the actual result looked different? If yes then you were using xG, just your subjective version of it.
Ohhh you mean sC?
Now you're talking
Xw went through the wall.Now you're talking
I have absolutely no idea what any of this means, mind you, I took woodwork in school.
Only one game won since their cup final win against us
Delighted for the Geordie cnuts. Acted like they'd just won something with that dressing room photo
Delighted for the Geordie cnuts. Acted like they'd just won something with that dressing room photo
So what’s the plan for Eddie? Upcoming debrief at the embassy?
Each to their own vices.
They played well. Had lots of shots inside the box. Regularly getting shots in central areas of the box is good.
The xG itself isn’t the be all and end all.
As with any statistic it needs to be looked at in context so rather than wanking silly over high xG the only way to appreciate if it’s a really good thing or not is to also look at how that xG was made.
The Liverpool game is a perfect example of xG working really well to describe that they had lots of high quality chances compared to Newcastle.
You should remove the two penalties at 0.76xG each. Not only are they outliers, but Liverpool cheated to win both. TAA's rebound too. That's about 2xG of data more representative of bad refereeing than their performance.
Bah! It was organised by FIFA. UEFA didn’t like it because they hadn’t got control of it, but eventually managed to wrest it from FIFA and turn it into the UEFA Cup.
It was certainly taken seriously in its day.
I’d forgotten that the last four winners were English clubs: Leeds, Newcastle, Arsenal, Leeds again. As were the first two UEFA Cup winners: Spurs and Liverpool.
They aren’t a big club. They seem big because it’s one city club so they have a large local fanbase.
Something which you could not have possibly worked out by actually watching the game, presumably?
Some people take the Uefa Cup seriously as well.
The problem with considering the Fairs Cup an official Cup is it was originally created as a marketing tool for trade Fairs and was only contested by City XI teams in what were basically friendlies.
I'm sure it's nice to have it in your clubs history but it wasn't a major competition. It's not much different than the International Champions Cup or whatever that preseason tournament is called.
Yeah of course you could and if you’ve paid any attention to my posts in the safe thread or here you’ll see I put great emphasis on these stats being put into contexts or used sparingly but on any given PL weekend there’s 10 games going on so that’s 900 mins (minimum) or 15 hours worth of football to watch. With that in mind xG is a very good way of checking what kinds of chances teams are creating in terms of quality relative to the rest of the league
It will never replace the eyes and it’s not meant to but it can do is confirm that the eyes are still working but also help the eyes decide on what to focus on.
"By actually watching the game you could see who scored more goals, no reason to write the result down" would be about the same level of logic as yours about xG